Wednesdays With Hildy: Does The NHL Have An Obligation To Help Others?

by hildymac on Oct 19, 2011 10:00 AM CDT

After the tragic passing of New York Rangers enforcer Derek Boogaard and former Vancouver Canucks forward Rick Rypien, there was an outcry among some of the league's fans regarding raising awareness for mental health issues, and those cries got louder at the passing of Wade Belak. They wanted the league to do something more to help players suffering from depression and other mental disorders, but more than that many fans said that it was the league's obligation to raise awareness regarding mental health issues in general, perhaps a la their Hockey Fights Cancer initiative.

The Canucks have donated $50,000 to help establish a website and a service in British Columbia for the BC Children’s Hospital Foundation specifically to promote mental health for children and young adults, and to help people who are having issues with mental disorders - the service also offers support for friends and family members suffering from depression, which is an important aspect in treatment that's overlooked. It's wonderful of the Canucks specifically to focus on children. As a psychology teacher - or just even a teacher in general - I've had students struggle with problems, and a service like this would have been a Godsend for them.

The Blues - individuals and the team itself - are outstandingly involved in community services, whether by personal choice (the players) or as a member of the community (the Blues). We're fortunate to have a team such as the Blues who are integrated in the community and who take pride in the St. Louis area. The NHL in general is full of very generous individuals who are willing to drop everything to go to a childrens' hospital, help pack lunches for the homeless, or to go save a cute puppy from an abandoned building. A lot of what these guys and these teams do doesn't make the front pages of the paper, and I'm pretty sure that the teams and players prefer it that way.

Obligation's an awfully strong word sometimes. It insinuates that someone HAS to do something, that it's their moral duty. It's hard to pin that on a person, but it's even harder to pin that on an entire organization or business. Is this a cause that the NHL now must champion since they've lost at least one player to the darkness of mental illness? The bigger question, past if the league "has" to help is this: does having an obligation to help with a cause cheapen the work done? Is the intent to serve diminished by the motivation? To me, the NHL doesn't have to champion any cause that they don't want to, much like individuals don't have to donate to charity if they don't want to. Canada and the US are both free countries.

Would it be right of them - a generous thing to do? Absolutely, and it's something that I support them doing 100%. But do they have to?

Tweet Comment 5 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Do they have to?

No, it’s their decision to choose whether the need to or not. It’s not mandatory the league do ANYTHING.
Will it look good if the NHL decides to do so? Yes and no. Yes, because it does show the league wants to help with this issue, but at the same time there will be people saying the NHL is doing it to cover itself after what happened over the summer.

Baltimore Blast - 6-time MISL/NISL Champions
Let's go Blues!

by UIWWildthing on Oct 19, 2011 10:35 AM CDT reply actions

You summed it up nicely.

Someone’s going to say it’s not enough or it’s a cover and then someone else will complain that the charity threw the money into its advertising and mailing campaigns and eventually all the good will generated from the gift is gone. Then said giver of the gift is bitter because they gave and all they hear is “That’s all?” from either the recipient or the unaffiliated supporters of the recipient.

That’s when it stops being charitable and starts being obligatory, and that’s when the love is gone. That’s no good for anyone involved.

Let's Go Blues!
Support your local NAHL team. Seriously.

by Paperwork Ninja on Oct 19, 2011 12:00 PM CDT up reply actions

yes

because this is entertainment and entertainment is usually good clean fun. racing will HAVE to do something now. don’t know what. no one really cares what when you get right down to it. but something will have to be done.

go to the rink, they did something when a fan died. it is still there. it will always be there. now.

when the fans can no longer ingore the man behind the curtain the sport purchases a new, larger and flashier curtain..

it does so because it must do so. because it is business.

do you think of britanny when you see the net? do you think your safe? or have you gone back to ignoring the man it hides?

And a harvest of righteousness is grown from the seed of peace planted by peacemakers.

by Childhood Trauma on Oct 19, 2011 1:23 PM CDT reply actions

Do I think they're obligated? No. Do I think they SHOULD? Absolutely.

Good PR is the best PR, and helping a cause like this can only be good for the league. But at the same time, just like the National Football League, they’re not obligated to jack shit.

That said, the NHL is one of the more progressive leagues as far as initiatives like this are concerned, and I anticipate they will do something in regard to mental health research in the near future.

Fight Club writer for the print edition of St. Louis Game Time . . . I need another beer.
The Throwdown Lowdown Report, only on The Bluenote Zone.
And I can also write things in 140 characters or fewer.

by Donut King on Oct 19, 2011 1:33 PM CDT reply actions

Legally? Of course not.

Morally, though, well that’s another story.

If you believe (as many do) that we should try to make life easier on this planet for everyone while we’re here, then these players and this organization have an obligation to use their success toward that end. Awareness drives, cancer walks, whatever they deem important enough that seems to be getting short shrift from the media NEEDS to be brought to the public’s attention.

Service industries provide help; why not give the entertainment industry—which does provide a service to us—a less sundry appearance (DWI arrests, cavorting shirtless in the limo with the ladies, etc.) by showing that they do, indeed serve our needs, and not just the need to satisfy our competitive drives.

If I get unexpected luck in my life financially, you had better believe I give something back. I don’t make much as a teacher, but I know first-hand how much you change the world by helping others.

If they want to appear like selfish, impulse-driven celebrities, fine. But I won’t support any team that doesn’t do charitable work. Don’t require it, but definitely promote it.

by Tasialue on Oct 19, 2011 2:53 PM CDT reply actions